" Is it really needed in 2012 to support using a non-SMP i486 kernel on Slackware? "

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.

You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!

Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.

Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.

Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide

This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.

" Is it really needed in 2012 to support using a non-SMP i486 kernel on Slackware? "

Well, the question is not mine. It is actually Pat's question, posed in extra folder... and the suggestion to open a thread is also Pat's. So I am just taking the initiative, and let's hear some thoughts...

In slackware-current/extra/linux-3.2.13-nosmp-sdk/ , Pat asks...

Quote:

"... is it really needed in 2012 to support using a non-SMP i486 kernel on Slackware? I'm thinking it isn't, and considering dropping this on the x86 IA32 side, where about the most minimal instruction set likely to be encountered these days is an Atom or something along those lines.

Thoughts appreciated on this! Perhaps a thread on LinuxQuestions.org?

- Pat "

Last edited by caduqued; 04-28-2012 at 06:41 AM.

Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.

Was it ever "needed"? My understanding is that the smp-enabled kernels work fine on uni-processor machines.

IMO the huge/generic split doesn't have much value either. I'd be in favour of simplifying this further and just having a single kernel option..

Yes, I agree... even several ARM processors are SMP-capable, so I don't see any point in keeping this in the current mainstream of Slackware. Architectures with memory exclusively dedicated to a single or uni-processor are extremely rare nowadays...

As far as I understand the SMP kernel requires i686 at minimum. While I don't see the specific need for a non-SMP kernel, there is still i486 SoC hardware out there, like Soekris. As long as the Linux developers support these, there should at least be left an option in Slackware.

The distribution needs to have as an install option a kernel that will boot on a non-SMP system of the lowest order. This could be a very limited kernel which would allow a older unit to boot, and then it would be up to the user to configure and compile it as required for their system.

I suspect that Slackers are quite capable of building their own kernels.

I forget, is that CPU abacus based or do you have to bang the rocks together?

I also have some old machines running Windows that I have imaged by booting using the non-SMP kernel from a Slackware 12 install disk with additional support for NTFS added. I actually needed to use an earlier version of Slackware for this as 13.37 requires 128MB RAM. A typical live CD like SystemRescueCd requires even more RAM to boot. I mention this to qualify the point that guzzi made. The distribution already has support for non-SMP systems of the lowest order via the earlier versions, but such systems have physical limits that cannot accommodate the latest huge kernel and associated binaries in the installer.

I vote for smp only. This will provide a fine excuse for me to clean out my office! I can run older slackware or build my own kernel if needed. A huge kernel is ok, esp. for boot install, as most systems these days have plenty of RAM. The generic kernel should stay, since one doesn't need to load every tom, dick and harry module into memory if you don't have it.